DORSET SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TOKENS. 49 



the following extract in greater detail from the corporation records, 

 fol. 328 : 



" Att a full Hall held on Friday, the fifth daye of Novembre, 

 "1669, 21 Car. II. Regis, also yt ys agreede uppon, Thatt 

 " Mister Deputie Maior bee pleased to laie outt tenn pounds 

 " in ffarthynges, for the townes use and profitt of the poore, 

 "the superscription on the one side to be 'A Waymouth 

 "Ffarthyng,' and on the other syde 'For the Poore,' with 

 " the Towne Armes." 



Mr. Ellis adds that they must also have issued another, having on 

 the obverse "A Weymouth Farthing for the Poor, 1669," and on 

 the reverse " The Town Arms." He is not right in his supposition, 

 however, for there was only one town-piece issued ; the specific 

 instructions of the corporation simply not being carried out. 



The Boroughs generally do not appear to have troubled themselves 

 very much about the issue of tokens by private individuals, and in 

 only one instance can I find any notice taken of any such issue. 

 This was in the case of Lawrence Kighton, of Dorchester, who had 

 issued a half-penny token, and an entry occurs in the Borough 

 minutes referring directly to this token and putting him under 

 terms to retake them at the same rate if they are put down or do 

 not pass. 



The earliest date of any Dorset token is 1650, that of Richard 

 Olliver, of Poole, who is run very closely by John Feisher, of 

 Evershot, and Zanchy Harvyn, of Milton Abbas, both dated 1651. 

 It is somewhat unfortunate that I have not in my own collection nor 

 have I ever myself met with any of these three unusually early 

 ones for Dorset, and must therefore rely for the correctness of their 

 dates upon Boyne's accuracy alone. 



The latest date is 1671, borne by Edward Tizard of Poole, just 

 one year later than the tokens of Robert Ekins and Thomas Flory, 

 both of Wimborne, which are dated 1670. The great majority of 

 the tokens it will be seen are dated at a period subsequent to the 

 Restoration of Charles II., and, whether it can be considered as a 

 sign of any want of attachment to the House of Stuart or not, it 



